THE MULUND ENDEAVOUR CHS LIMITED SOM SINHA AND ASSOCIATES vs ALAG PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — CARAP/255/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 11. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 17th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020131312026
e-Filing Number
13-04-2026
Filing Number
CARAP/13131/2026
Filing Date
15-Apr-2026
Registration No
CARAP/255/2026
Registration Date
22-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Bench Type
Single
Category
ARBITRATION ( 4 )
Sub-Category
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
17-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE MULUND ENDEAVOUR CHS LIMITED SOM SINHA AND ASSOCIATES
Respondent(s)
-
1.ALAG PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
The Bombay High Court granted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Mr. Rohan Kelkar as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Mulund Endeavour CHS Limited and Alag Property and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. arising from their Development Agreements dated 2 July 2016 and 30 September 2019. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, and the court directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator for procedural directions, with arbitrator fees to be shared equally between the parties and subject to the final award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CARAP/255/2026
The Bombay High Court granted the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Mr. Rohan Kelkar as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Mulund Endeavour CHS Limited and Alag Property and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. arising from their Development Agreements dated 2 July 2016 and 30 September 2019. The respondent did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement, and the court directed the parties to appear before the arbitrator for procedural directions, with arbitrator fees to be shared equally between the parties and subject to the final award. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts